Nowhere am I saying that bombing Mecca or Medina is a good idea, but I can't fault a Presidential candidate for exploring as many options as possible. And really, there is reason/logic to bombing Mecca...it's just that the negatives greatly outweigh the positives.

I just think it's funny that you guys blast this guy for presenting something while the left-wing nuts continue to twiddle their thumbs and play political battleship.

davidmarver wrote:I just think it's funny that you guys blast this guy for presenting something while the left-wing nuts continue to twiddle their thumbs and play political battleship.

I think it's funny that anyone can stick up for a guy who thinks bombing churches is a good idea. I could understand sticking up for him if we were disagreeing with his stance on abortion or immigration, but sticking up for these comments is almost as bad as believing in them (which I'm sure some of you quietly do). Here's an idea... next time you're in church, take a look around at the people sitting near you... now think about what he proposes again. There's 6 1/2 billion people on Earth... not 300 million.

One other thing... I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so my allegiance doesn't belong to any one party. Having said this, I can say quite surely and objectively it's not the "left-wing nuts" who've put our country in the mess it's currently in. They're also not responsible for the lowest world opinion of America... ever, but if it makes you feel better to blame "liberals", go right ahead.

davidmarver wrote:I'm not sticking up for bombing churches, I'm sticking up for someone having an idea. Bombing Mecca would be a tragic mistake, yes, but the idea of trying to 'hit home' with terrorists isn't.

There's a WORLD of difference between saying we need to "hit a home run" with terrorists and suggesting from a public platform to the rest of the world that dropping bombs on innocent civilians in mosques is a good idea. This isn't Joe Blow saying this, this is a presidential candidate! How can you not see the difference?

davidmarver wrote:Right, and 26 million of those deserve the same freedoms that we have; convenient hypocrisy?

davidmarver wrote:I'm not sticking up for bombing churches, I'm sticking up for someone having an idea. Bombing Mecca would be a tragic mistake, yes, but the idea of trying to 'hit home' with terrorists isn't.

There's a WORLD of difference between saying we need to "hit a home run" with terrorists and suggesting from a public platform to the rest of the world that dropping bombs on innocent civilians in mosques is a good idea. This isn't Joe Blow saying this, this is a presidential candidate! How can you not see the difference?

Just for arguments sake, and correct me if I've missed something, but when did he say he wanted to slaughter all these civilians? Seems to me you're blowing this way out of proportion. Are most places packed with civilians in the middle of the night? I don't think so, as long as you're not going after Mecca during the annual pilgrimage or something like that. I know if you bombed my church in the middle of the night you wouldn't get any civilians.

Furthermore, I'm of the mind that in a war, civilians are going to die. Heck on 9/11 it was mostly civilians that died. There is bound to be some collateral damage. Expecting anything less is just an unreasonable standard, and one that I think harms us in places like Iraq (whether you believe in the war or not, and I personally do not so let's not get into that argument).

But in any case, I don't think that's what he was getting at. I'm of the mind that this is simply out-of-the-box thinking, and there's nothing wrong with that at all IMO. I don't see how it's ignorant, or bigoted, or anything of the like. It's just an idea, and there's no such thing as a bad idea. I don't think it would be a solid plan or pay dividends were it to come to fruition, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with him talking about the idea. But that's just me.

davidmarver wrote:I'm not sticking up for bombing churches, I'm sticking up for someone having an idea. Bombing Mecca would be a tragic mistake, yes, but the idea of trying to 'hit home' with terrorists isn't.

There's a WORLD of difference between saying we need to "hit a home run" with terrorists and suggesting from a public platform to the rest of the world that dropping bombs on innocent civilians in mosques is a good idea. This isn't Joe Blow saying this, this is a presidential candidate! How can you not see the difference?

Just for arguments sake, and correct me if I've missed something, but when did he say he wanted to slaughter all these civilians? Seems to me you're blowing this way out of proportion. Are most places packed with civilians in the middle of the night? I don't think so, as long as you're not going after Mecca during the annual pilgrimage or something like that. I know if you bombed my church in the middle of the night you wouldn't get any civilians.

First of all Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. If I am not mistaken SA is one of the few allies that the US has in the Middle East. This man is suggesting bombing one of your few allies. What would this do to Israel? What would this do to the supply of oil?

The important part of Mecca is the stone in the Great Mosque that is the most important religious artifact to all Muslims - so I'm assuming that this guy is suggesting bombing the Kaba. I've only ever seen one National Geographic piece on the Kaba and I was under the impression that the mosque is packed round the clock and that Muslims line up for hours to get close.

The Kaba is the Vatican City, the Statue of Liberty, the Louvre all rolled into one. It is the most holy place in the world for over a billion people. As much as some people don't want to admit it only a very small fraction of those billion people are terrorists. As far as the terrorists are concerned these guys die to carry out their agendas, I don't think that attacking their holiest relic will get them to back off. All that it would do is get them more recruits, more money and more support.

Big Pimpin wrote:Furthermore, I'm of the mind that in a war, civilians are going to die. Heck on 9/11 it was mostly civilians that died. There is bound to be some collateral damage. Expecting anything less is just an unreasonable standard, and one that I think harms us in places like Iraq (whether you believe in the war or not, and I personally do not so let's not get into that argument).

But in any case, I don't think that's what he was getting at. I'm of the mind that this is simply out-of-the-box thinking, and there's nothing wrong with that at all IMO. I don't see how it's ignorant, or bigoted, or anything of the like. It's just an idea, and there's no such thing as a bad idea. I don't think it would be a solid plan or pay dividends were it to come to fruition, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with him talking about the idea. But that's just me.

I think that the idea is bigoted, ignorant and stupid. No such thing as a bad idea?? Next thing he will suggest getting into get involved in a land war in Asia or going up against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Sure think outside the box but you've got to develop a stupid filter, this guy just looks like a complete numbskull.

Tom Tancredo wrote:“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,”

It certainly doesn't sound to me like he's making allowances for civilians. What he is doing, though, is making broad generalizations about Muslims. The Muslim extremists (who are in the vast minority, BTW) would like nothing more than for a full scale holy war to break out, and you know what?... this type of backwards ass thinking would give it to them.